**From the musings of no consequence**

[joeecho]

**From the musings of no consequence**

If creation was never created then logic would dictated that there was never a creator.

Most would argue, with proof (perhaps one of the proofs would be creation itself), that there is a creator.

In fact, the ego insists on it. ;)

[onawah]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1912519_896308660398588_1941111409_n.jpg?oh=b0b37168a29277e5b72542c6d606cbf5&oe=541D26CE&__gda__=1410985757_4b602d6906325e0a5394f4b6c764fa37

[joeecho]

No No No No


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZN_8M4OpMo

Yes negates nothing.

No negates everything (including itself).

[sirdipswitch]

"IF" there was no creation, then your logic would be correct.

However, there "IS" a creation, therefore by that same logic, it would necessitate a creator.

Which there is... yep. uh-huh. :wizard:

[Jake]

**From the musings of no consequence**

If creation was never created then logic would dictated that there was never a creator.

Most would argue, with proof (perhaps one of the proofs would be creation itself), that there is a creator.

In fact, the ego insists on it. ;)

If creation was never created,, then there would be no logic, and no ego to insist it... ;)

[joeecho]

**From the musings of no consequence**

If creation was never created then logic would dictated that there was never a creator.

Most would argue, with proof (perhaps one of the proofs would be creation itself), that there is a creator.

In fact, the ego insists on it. ;)

If creation was never created,, then there would be no logic, and no ego to insist it... ;)


"IF" there was no creation, then your logic would be correct.

However, there "IS" a creation, therefore by that same logic, it would necessitate a creator.

Which there is... yep. uh-huh. :wizard:


Creation and all it's subsets exists in a bubble all the while trying to avoid sharp objects.

Good thing NO sharp objects exist. That would just suck if it did for Eternity if there was. :p

http://www.opticalillusion.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/penguin1.jpg

[Skyhaven]

Creation is created by the creator who resides in the creation of the next creator, who resides in the creation of the next creator, until infinity and at infinity our entire reasoning breaks down, including logic.

[conk]

"I dunno Mom, I just poured different things into the tube and BAM this whole big thing burst forth"

"I told you to put that thing away and wash your hands for supper". "That's the last thing we need around here is another universe to look after".

[Skyhaven]

"No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point"

Jean-Paul Sartre

[donk]

"No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point"

Jean-Paul Sartre

Doesn’t statistics and the assumption of “infinity” prove it?

It seems to me, if infinite exists (with it represented as X, with Q representing any quantity less than infinity) then there is (at least) an (X - Q) to one chance of things existing exactly as they are, right now…so here we are. Then the equation for what happens just factors in free will (FW):

(X-Q):1 = existence
FW

…maybe I’m oversimplifying things?

[Skyhaven]

"No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point"

Jean-Paul Sartre

Doesn’t statistics and the assumption of “infinity” prove it?

It seems to me, if infinite exists (with it represented as X, with Q representing any quantity less than infinity) then there is (at least) an (X - Q) to one chance of things existing exactly as they are, right now…so here we are. Then the equation for what happens just factors in free will (FW):

(X-Q):1 = existence
FW

…maybe I’m oversimplifying things?

You lost me at subtracting a finite quantity from the infinite, but I appreciate your effort to approach the matter the way you did. :)

[donk]

A synchronicity, I read your post, then immediately after read this, maybe he's on to something:


Speed, velocity, simultaneity, acceleration, and other mathematical abstractions having to do with
the pattern of eternity were part of Martian mathematics, but not of Martian emotion, Contrariwise,
the unceasing rush and turmoil of human existence came not from mathematical necessities of time
but from the frantic urgency implicit in human sexual bipolarity.


Robert Heinlein "Stranger In A Strange Land"

[Skyhaven]

A synchronicity, I read your post, then immediately after read this, maybe he's on to something:


Contrariwise, the unceasing rush and turmoil of human existence came not from mathematical necessities of time
but from the frantic urgency implicit in human sexual bipolarity.


Robert Heinlein "Stranger In A Strange Land"

I would agree with that mathematics/logic offers just abstractions that fit the patterns of reality to some degree. If it fitted perfectly than Infinity would make perfects sense logically. But i don't think "the rush and turmoil of human existence came from the frantic urgency implicit in human sexual bipolarity" solely. The rush and turmoil, which are instances of movement, arise from polarity, without it everything would be static. So a base characteristic of existence is polarity, then finite things must have an opposite namely infinite things.

[donk]

...I have to think that over it ("grok" it, to Heinlein...), feels like a chicken/egg type dilemma. I just came across this (from same book):


The Universe was a damned silly place at best . . . but the least likely explanation for its
existence was the no-explanation of random chance, the conceit that some abstract somethings "just
happened" to be some atoms that "just happened" to get together in configurations which "just
happened" to look like consistent laws and then some of these configurations "just happened" to
possess self-awareness...

...

Random chance was not a sufficient explanation of the Universe-in fact,
random chance was not sufficient to explain random chance; the pot could not hold itself.

[East Sun]

No musings........